Just when ya though ya heard it all.........

I'm speechless............

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html

:banghead::evil:

 

I'm sure there will be a slew on here to say it is there right, some freedom, blah blah blah.

 

:shock::shock::shock: I hope she gets the help she needs.

 

she is ridiculously stupid, on so many levels.

 

OMG! :shock: What in the world was she thinking????

 

She isn't...........that's the sad part. She "thinks" she is, but she really isn't.........Like Kimmie said, people will say it is her right, but do we REALLY have to take our rights to such idiotic levels? Have we become so "my rights!" oriented that we have abandoned COMMON SENSE? Is her "right" so important that she is endangering herself as well as taken the life of an unborn child? Have we let our "right" to do things over ride our good sense? I'm serious. I'm all for people having their right to do things but when it comes to undermining good common sense, that person does not deserve "rights". IMO only................

 

The point is that she doesn't care. It is a sorry, awful thing, but it's true. I guess she has the right not to care even if it is stupid.

 

What is sick is that she thinks it's "art." :banghead:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html

According to this article, it was "creative fiction"..................supposedly now she didn't actually do it. I sincerely hope not. She still needs help in my opinion. For what little that's worth.

 

God I hope you're right. And i agree that she does need help. How can ANYONE think that anything like this can be considered "art"???:?::?

:ack::ack::ack:

 

if its entirely fiction, i agree that its art. if there is a real aspect to this... then its a cry for help... and absolutely disgusting.

I would never suggest that H.P. Lovecraft or Stephen King need(ed) help no matter how much their writings disturbed me personally (and they certainly do), the same for this young lady.

 

An interesting take on it, I can see your point. But not sure when bodily fluids became art supplies, if indeed that is what she did. :?

 

it may not be my cup of tea but I do not have to see it, read it, or watch it. That's what that whole free speech thing is about.
I laughed when I read that both anti abortionists and pro-choice people were against it. That tell me whatever her point was - it didn't work. other then the point of opening discussion.
Where do todays presidential canidates stand on abortion? I thought the dems were prochoice and Mccain anti?

 

I prefer to be called 'pro-life', thank you very much. :mrgreen:

 

I think they are both pro-choice. It's just that some of them actually believe that all parties involved should have a choice, including the baby.

 

Sorry Ready - i thought they were the same thing.
In all due seriousness what is the difference between Anti-abortion and Pro-life? I have seen both used.

 

framing. its nothing but framing. If you use "Pro-Life" you've forced the audience to think of the opposition as "Anti-Life", and nobody wants to support an "Anti-Life" cause, so pro-life strikes a nerve there. for "Anti-Abortion" to be effective framework, you have to be addressing a group of people who believe abortion is entirely wrong, pro-life works more globally. Same with "Pro-Choice", the framework there suggests that the opposition is against your choice, which is an essential part of freedom.

 

I say I'm pro-life because I'm not only opposed to abortion, but also to euthanasia of humans.

 

No, but that isn't taking the life of an innocent person, it's punishment for a crime.

 

It goes further than that.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:23

So, technically, there are no innocents.